Subject: [Tools-team] Minutes from 13 October 2004 Telechat

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:41:56 +0200

Hi,

Here are the minutes from today's telechat.

---------------------------------------------------------

Agenda:

1. Agenda bashing

	Added Larry's point about toosl for non-IETFers
	under item 6.

2. Comments on minutes from last teleconference.

	None

3. Status of I-D submission tool draft, and wrapping that up

	-04 is out.  Are we ready for a "wg last call" on this?
	Not quite, but -05 should be.

4. Tool priority list

	-

5. Action item review.

    * All:	Review the -03 version of the I-D submission draft, and 
		comment.  Preferably by Saturday, but latest by Sunday
		this week.

	Review by Henrik received

    * Henrik:	Put all tool information into the XML format the page
		generation tool expects.  Generate pages.

	Not done

    * Henrik:	Try to make the tool XML files editable through the wiki.

	Not done

    * Alex:	Apply comments to draft, new draft out by Monday.

	Done

    * Henrik:	Start a wiki page for expanded item description, send
		message to mailing list when ready to start discussion.

	Not done

6. Any other business.

    Larry: we need some new categories of tools for users:
	* "Newcomers"
	* "General Public"
	    - Implementors
	    - Trade press
	    - Marketers
	    - Product buyers
	    - General public

    Tools for these categories need to have an interface which is very
    easy, assuming no knowledge.  This might be new tools, or easy 
    interfaces to existing tools.

    For instance, a newcomer might need an especially easy way to get
    hold of the current version of a draft, and all associated information.

    Stas: Given the way drafts are spread and copied out of the repositories,
    the best place for pointers to archives might be inside the drafts
    themselves.

    One example could be that the general public doesn't know the
    difference between a standard and an RFC.

    Larry: A lot of the problems discussed in NEWTRK could be solved
    by tools, which is one reason why I volunteered for the tools team ...
    
    Stas: I'm afraid we'd be getting into defining procedures, rather than
    tools ....

    Stas?: Change "General Public" to "Standards Users".
    Larry: Add "Trade Press"

7. Action items for next week:

    * Alex:	Send out remaining draft items which needs resolution
		to the list, for comment

    * All:	Help resolve the remaining draft items. 

    * Stas, Larry:
		If you can find time to review the -04 version of the 
		I-D submission draft and comment by Sunday this week it
		would be good.

    * Alex:	Apply comments to draft, new draft out by Monday.

    * Henrik:	Put all tool information into the XML format the page
		generation tool expects.  Generate pages.

    * Henrik:	Try to make the tool XML files editable through the wiki.

    * Henrik:	Start a wiki page for expanded item description, send
		message to mailing list when ready to start discussion.

8. Next meeting:

     Teleconference Wednesday 20 Oct, 16:00 GMT (same local time as today).

---------------------------------------------------------
Connection details:

    To join the call, dial +1-734-531-0125 and enter PIN 0151989.

    One can also join the call by dialing:
      sip:[email-masked] 
    on a SIP-enabled voice communications client. 

    If the SIP client cannot dial URLs, you can have the conference
    system call you if you have the sip URL for your phone.  Go to
      https://edial.internet2.edu/call/0151989
    and type in the URL to your phone, and follow the directions.

_______________________________________________
Tools-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-team

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:12:50 -0600 (MDT)

Guys,

 	I currently do not have answers or specific text corresponding 
to the following XXXs in the ID submission draft. If somebody could 
provide specific text (or just an answer/reference where XXX is a 
question), that would be great.

XXX66: Is XML currently allowed format for drafts? Can I submit plain 
text and XML formats for both to be posted?

XXX64: Is PDF currently allowed format for drafts?

XXX12: A comprehensive list of specific references that define syntax 
and semantics requirements for RFCs.

Unmarked XXX: "List testable nits here or refer to the nits document. 
Henrik's idnits tool is a starting point: 
http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/idnits/". Henrik already provided a 
list but then, IIRC, the Secretariat said that Henrik's nits checking 
tool does not check what the Secretariat is checking for and/or does 
not check it the right way. Thus, I am not sure what to put here.

If you take on an item, please post so that others and myself do not 
start working on it.

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: "Barbara B. Fuller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 14:17:55 -0400

Hi Alex:

At 01:12 PM 10/17/2004, you wrote:

>Guys,
>
>         I currently do not have answers or specific text corresponding to 
> the following XXXs in the ID submission draft. If somebody could provide 
> specific text (or just an answer/reference where XXX is a question), that 
> would be great.
>
>XXX66: Is XML currently allowed format for drafts? Can I submit plain text 
>and XML formats for both to be posted?

No.  XML format is not currently accepted.

>XXX64: Is PDF currently allowed format for drafts?

Yes.  PDF format is currently accepted.

>XXX12: A comprehensive list of specific references that define syntax and 
>semantics requirements for RFCs.
>
>http://ietf.levkowetz.com/tools/idnits/". Henrik already provided a list 
>but then, IIRC, the Secretariat said that Henrik's nits checking tool does 
>not check what the Secretariat is checking for and/or does not check it 
>the right way. Thus, I am not sure what to put here.

The Secretariat bases its reviews on the "Guidelines to Authors of 
Internet-Drafts."  If drafts adhere to these guidelines, then they are 
accepted.

>If you take on an item, please post so that others and myself do not start 
>working on it.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Alex.

Barbara

------------------------------------------------
Barbara B. Fuller
Acting Executive Director
Internet Engineering Task Force

Natick, Massachusetts Office:

Phone: +1-508-650-4020
Fax:     +1-508-650-4639

Reston, Virginia Office:

Phone: +1-703-620-9053
Fax:     +1-703-620-9071

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:16:32 +0200

Hi,

> At 01:12 PM 10/17/2004, you wrote:

[snip]

>> and semantics requirements for RFCs.

Mmhm.  I think this would be a combination of the Guidelines mentioned
by Barbara below; the ID-checklist, and one or two documents on the 
RFC editor website.  I'm currently bound up in last-minute revisions
of a -00 draft submission, and can't promise to take this on...

> Internet-Drafts."  If drafts adhere to these guidelines, then they are 

The idnits tool is based on the ID-Checklist document, and has a
somewhat different applicability -- this document lists nits which
should be fixed in documents submitted for publication as RFC, rather
than any draft submitted for placement in the draft repository.

	Henrik

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:18:45 +0200

--On søndag, oktober 17, 2004 11:12:50 -0600 Alex Rousskov 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Guys,
>
>  	I currently do not have answers or specific text corresponding to the
> following XXXs in the ID submission draft. If somebody could provide

No, but it should be changed.
> XXX64: Is PDF currently allowed format for drafts?

Yes.
> semantics requirements for RFCs.

rfc 2223
draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt>
<http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html>

there is no fifth entry

> but then, IIRC, the Secretariat said that Henrik's nits checking tool
> does not check what the Secretariat is checking for and/or does not check
> it the right way. Thus, I am not sure what to put here.

the secretariat checks for "blocking" errors - things that impact whether 
or not we know that the IETF has permission to do its thing, or things that 
cause things to be messed up like mismatch of filename or version between 
request and the docuemnt itself.

the idnits script checks for all sorts of things that "usually shouldn't be 
this way".

---

From: "Barbara B. Fuller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:13:13 -0400

Hi Henrik:

At 08:16 PM 10/17/2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

>>>does not check what the Secretariat is checking for and/or does not 
>>>check it the right way. Thus, I am not sure what to put here.
>>

Yes, we of course know this.  We don't review documents for compliance with 
the "ID Checklist" that have been submitted for posting in the 
Internet-Drafts directory.

Barbara

Phone: +1-508-650-4020
Fax:     +1-508-650-4639

Reston, Virginia Office:

Phone: +1-703-620-9053
Fax:     +1-703-620-9071

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:59:49 +0200

Hi Barbara,

Barbara B. Fuller wrote:
>>>> Unmarked XXX: "List testable nits here or refer to the nits 
>>>> document. Henrik's idnits tool is a starting point: 
>>>> list but then, IIRC, the Secretariat said that Henrik's nits 
>>>> checking tool does not check what the Secretariat is checking for 
>>>> and/or does not check it the right way. Thus, I am not sure what to 
>>>> put here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts."  If drafts adhere to these guidelines, then they 
>>> are accepted.
>>
>>
> Yes, we of course know this.  We don't review documents for compliance 
> with the "ID Checklist" that have been submitted for posting in the 

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know this, I
meant to acknowledge that idnits wasn't quite the appropriate tool
for the task of vetting regular I-D submissions :-)

The way idnits is currently used, to my knowledge, is by chairs
and some ADs, to verify documents submitted for publication as RFC.
It might make sense to automate this in the future, maybe?

	Regards,
		Henrik